Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jaguar E-Type series 1 coupé 1964.jpg

File:Jaguar E-Type series 1 coupé 1964.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 09:12:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Jaguar E-Type series 1 coupé 1964.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jaguar E-Type series 1 coupé 1964.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
•  Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, no. Great car and detail, unfortunate background, especially with that distracting message/ad in the window. Again we ask the impossible of photographers at FPC, such as walk on water, hover in the air or get the owner of the car to park it at a better location. Ok, I'm only assuming it is not your car, if it were I think you would have chosen a better location to shoot it. w.carter-Talk 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but per above. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I think the background is a good contrast to the wonderful car. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Well, you could "cheat" and clone the right window onto the left one to get rid of the ad and busy window. I mean we have accepted cars being cloned out in front of buildings, so why not part of a building cloned behind a car? And a toned down + desaturated version of the yellow is a good complementary color to the blue of the car. --w.carter-Talk 13:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per others. --Code (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Without prejudice to whether the retouching in the alt version is acceptable or not, the composition doesn't add up to me, though I actually prefer this version, which gives the eye more to move around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

alt version

•  Info, Martin Falbisoner, Alchemist-hp, Code: here's another version with an alternative background per w.carter's sugestion above. DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Now this version is something I'd call striking. Please add a {{retouched|What you did}} tag to the new version though. (And remove that line per below.) w.carter-Talk 14:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done, added tag. DeFacto (talk). 17:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm sorry. Fake. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just curious, what is the difference between this and cloning out an offending car, street lamp, trash, bottles or any other of the things we have asked photographers to get rid of here? w.carter-Talk 14:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Normally, I don't bother with objects that are cloned out, but in this case, part of the background (which is a crucial element for a photography composition) is fake. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for explaining. I was only wondering since you had no problem supporting this faked image, but here we all know that the pic is manipulated from the start so that might make it harder to accept. I guess it's up to each of us where we decide to draw the line as long as the cloning/manipulation is thoroughly declared on the file's page, something that is clearly done in this case. w.carter-Talk 16:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• This was a intentional digital manipulation showing, not simply a repair. Otherwise, I would support. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk)

• Cool pic! :) Thanks for showing it, now I understand exactly what you mean. Great explaining. w.carter-Talk 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Request I see a thin line at the car at the coned place and everywhere cyan color points?! What's that? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done, @Alchemist-hp: I'm no retouch artist, but reprocessed the changes and it looks clean now. DeFacto (talk). 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I thought the car was so striking in the original that I didn't even notice the background. But this is just fine as an FP, despite the fact that a careful eye will see signs of the cloning. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Aceptable retuch --The Photographer (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 21:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I'm just not comfortable with editing of this magnitude. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose for reasons given above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Whatever the outcome of this nom may be, it is very interesting and enlightening to hear the community's view on corrections and what levels are acceptable. --w.carter-Talk 16:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent, and very good new background. Smart idea well completed. If this image was nominated at first without explanations, it should have receive more supports. Why "punish" honesty ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Main subject and reality are not altered --The Photographer (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, per orhers and clearly unfortunate and uggly background--Lmbuga (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice attempt, but I agree with KOH that the edit is too significant. --Pine^✉ 04:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)